Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01 (was: Re: Consensus call on adopting:....)

Tim Chown <> Sat, 14 April 2012 10:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED1621F858B for <>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 03:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iY8gc+k6oKYD for <>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 03:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3D621F8585 for <>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 03:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3EAUcxd015229 for <>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:30:38 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 q3EAUcxd015229
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=200903; t=1334399440; bh=u+b7zZN8Q6EXwR+dltCY7ARZo6o=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=MPs6IrCgg5YBvDW0OnOD+zp/WQVMLmxeAJDyLlCqUSfkajL4RYlnyCoIFdzIkJHet Fi88eZrQGhvv0CLZCFcZvvWa5sglaasRASYssU8CvSz5bt306WbNii/8LyZotCp0h1 gFu2TbTZCZCFPVVdLldm+L2mrlSailqduOEELKfQ=
Received: from ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <> with ESMTP id o3DBUc0543702132l4 ret-id none; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:30:38 +0100
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3EAUMIR000640 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:30:23 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Subject: Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01 (was: Re: Consensus call on adopting:....)
From: Tim Chown <>
In-Reply-To: <1334363774.3945.541.camel@karl>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:30:23 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|289e913e0066f2de615a1e1b85762bcbo3DBUc03tjc||>
References: <> <1334276068.3945.408.camel@karl> <> <1334363774.3945.541.camel@karl> <>
To: 6man Mailing List <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=o3DBUc054370213200; tid=o3DBUc0543702132l4; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: q3EAUcxd015229
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:30:48 -0000

On 14 Apr 2012, at 01:36, Karl Auer wrote:

> On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 15:29 +0200, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> Additionally, I'd argue that in order to have such thing, then
>> 1) You'd need to manually configure your address each time you move from
>> one network to another (as with manual configuration requires you to set
>> the whole address, rather than just the IID bits), or,
> No - you could just have a flag that says "the key is the interface
> identifier I want to use - verbatim". Then that IID gets appended to
> whatever prefix happens along. Obviously this does NOT have the same
> anti-tracking qualities etc, but I can see it being useful. It's
> basically a variation on static addresses that allows portability
> between networks without having to reconfigure the host. Just as with
> other forms of static addressing, it is absolutely the administrator's
> problem to avoid conflicts.

I while ago I put this one forward, which is an alternative to Fernando's suggestion that you have to set the whole address:

This was based on existing implementations, in Solaris and Linux (as a demonstrator), with the potential for simpler renumbering in mind. It's probably the complete antithesis of what Fernando is trying to achieve, but is aimed at the type of (server) systems that would probably be DNS-advertised anyway.